Suppr超能文献

数字式、红外线和玻璃水银体温计测量体温的诊断准确性:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

The diagnostic accuracy of digital, infrared and mercury-in-glass thermometers in measuring body temperature: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Ospedale Civile Sant'Agostino Estense, AUSL Modena, Modena, Italy.

Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Roma, 10, 56126, Pisa, Italy.

出版信息

Intern Emerg Med. 2021 Jun;16(4):1071-1083. doi: 10.1007/s11739-020-02556-0. Epub 2020 Nov 25.

Abstract

Not much is known about how accurate and reproducible different thermometers are at diagnosing patients with suspected fever. The study aims at evaluating which peripheral thermometers are more accurate and reproducible. We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, WOS, CENTRAL, and Cinahl to perform: (1) diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis (MA) using rectal mercury-in-glass or digital thermometry as reference, and bivariate models for pooling; (2) network MA to estimate differences in mean temperature between devices; (3) Bland-Altman method to estimate 95% coefficient of reproducibility. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020174996. We included 46 studies enrolling more than 12,000 patients. Using 38 °C (100.4 ℉) as cut-off temperature, temporal infrared thermometry had a sensitivity of 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.65, 0.84; low certainty) and specificity of 0.96 (0.92, 0.98; moderate certainty); tympanic infrared thermometry had a sensitivity of 0.77 (0.60,  0.88; low certainty) and specificity of 0.98 (0.95, 0.99; moderate certainty). For all the other index devices, it was not possible to pool the estimates. Compared to the rectal mercury-in-glass thermometer, mean temperature differences were not statistically different from zero for temporal or tympanic infrared thermometry; the median coefficient of reproducibility ranged between 0.53 °C [0.95 ℉] for infrared temporal and 1.2 °C [2.16 ℉] for axillary digital thermometry. Several peripheral thermometers proved specific, but not sensitive for diagnosing fever with rectal thermometry as a reference standard, meaning that finding a temperature below 38 °C does not rule out fever. Fixed differences between temperatures together with random error means facing differences between measurements in the order of 2 °C [4.5 ℉]. This study informs practitioners of the limitations associated with different thermometers; peripheral ones are specific but not sensitive.

摘要

目前对于不同体温计在诊断疑似发热患者方面的准确性和可重复性知之甚少。本研究旨在评估哪种外周体温计更准确和可重复。我们检索了 Medline、Embase、Scopus、WOS、CENTRAL 和 Cinahl,以进行:(1) 使用直肠水银玻璃体温计或数字体温计作为参考的诊断准确性荟萃分析(MA),并使用双变量模型进行汇总;(2) 网络 MA 估计设备之间平均温度的差异;(3) Bland-Altman 法估计 95%可重复性系数。PROSPERO 注册:CRD42020174996。我们纳入了超过 12000 名患者的 46 项研究。使用 38°C(100.4°F)作为截断温度,时间红外线体温计的灵敏度为 0.76(95%置信区间,0.65-0.84;低确定性),特异性为 0.96(0.92-0.98;中等确定性);鼓膜红外线体温计的灵敏度为 0.77(0.60-0.88;低确定性),特异性为 0.98(0.95-0.99;中等确定性)。对于所有其他指数设备,无法汇总估计值。与直肠水银玻璃体温计相比,时间红外线和鼓膜红外线体温计的平均温度差异均无统计学意义;可重复性系数中位数范围在 0.53°C(0.95°F)之间,对于红外线时间体温计,1.2°C(2.16°F)对于腋下数字体温计。几种外周体温计被证明具有特异性,但作为参考标准的直肠体温计对发热的敏感性不高,这意味着发现体温低于 38°C 并不能排除发热。固定的温度差异加上随机误差意味着在测量之间存在 2°C(4.5°F)左右的差异。本研究为不同体温计相关的局限性提供了信息;外周体温计具有特异性但不敏感。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0461/8195974/4f4346da584f/11739_2020_2556_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验